I am sending my remarks. In the absence of principled disagreements, decide for yourselves. My advice: use it for propaganda, since it is clear that no other benefit can come of it. Extremely courteous with Nansen, extremely insolent with Wilson, Lloyd George and Clemenceau — this is very useful, with them one can only proceed thus — here is the correct tone.

6/V. Lenin

In my view, both responses are entirely correct, proposing a meeting and thanking Nansen.

But it seems to me that one should have developed the propaganda aspect more, utilizing the circumstance that the Entente, easily concealing all our other documents from everyone,* will not be able to conceal precisely this response as an exception.

I would therefore advise exploiting it for propaganda and developing in greater detail the separation of (.) the humanitarian and (.) the political aspect.

(.) You, you see, are referring to the humanitarian (it seems, even exclusively humanitarian?) character of the proposal? For this every manner of thanks and compliments personally to Nansen.

If it is humanitarian aims, my dear fellow, do not drag politics into it, but deliver it straight (this should be underscored). Deliver it straight! We are even prepared to pay three times over and willingly allow you in for inspection and will give you every sort of guarantees. Develop this, elaborate on it, clarify it. Set a place and time for negotiations!

But if it is an armistice, then after all this is politics! After all, you are an educated man, Mr. Nansen, you understand perfectly well that every war and every armistice is politics.

So you have combined "humanitarian"

* This refers to repeated official appeals to the Entente powers with a proposal for peace (see V. I. Lenin. Collected Works, 5th ed., vol. 39, p. 366). Ed.